Surprising findings from a comprehensive report on gun violence. ****** Commentary Added******

[rrneck]

Last edited Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

2. Most indices of crime and gun violence are getting better, not worse.
“Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years,” the report notes. “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.” Meanwhile, “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009.” Accidents are down, too: “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

Given current trends in crime, the political will to enact sweeping gun control laws is working against significant headwind in terms of public support. It appears that only those who stand to profit most from beating the ideological drum see any use in doing so. The irony is that if the crime rate spikes, or even perceptibly rises (as it surely must) perceptions by the public will likely prompt them to support increased access to personal firearms for the simple reason that the police can't jump through a rip in the fabric of time. People feel pretty safe now. When they feel less safe, they will buy more guns.

8. Carrying guns for self-defense is an arms race. The prevalence of firearm violence near “drug markets … could be a consequence of drug dealers carrying guns for self-defense against thieves or other adversaries who are likely to be armed,” says the report. In these communities, “individuals not involved in the drug markets have similar incentives for possessing guns.” According to a Pew Foundation report, “the vast majority of gun owners say that having a gun makes them feel safer. And far more today than in 1999 cite protection—rather than hunting or other activities—as the major reason for why they own guns.”

While homes and communities with more guns are certainly likely to have more gun related incidents, such statistics are useless when applied from the point of view of any given person who has to make an individual risk assessment rather than a broad evaluation of risk over a large geographic or demographic swaths of the population. Such dependence on ideologically based systems invariably turn those who will be harmed by such an approach into collateral damage in defense of ideology and invariably fall heaviest on those least able to bear the burden of support for such policies.

6. Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide.
From 2000 to 2010, “firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States,” says the report. Firearm sales are often a warning: Two studies found that “a small but significant fraction of gun suicides are committed within days to weeks after the purchase of a handgun, and both also indicate that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years after the purchase of the gun.”

While “a small but significant fraction of gun suicides" seem to be poorly thought out, the circumstances that lead to that decision whether impetuous or carefully planned remain. Disarming people to keep them from committing suicide without adequate social support for the problems that cause the desire for suicide is more of a defense of ideology than the people it purports to help. Controlling people's behavior without guidance and support is an exercise in state sponsored negative reinforcement that creates an entire cadre of walking wounded that is much more likely to vote for someone who at least sounds like they actually care about them rather than a disassociated ideology.

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively.
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

A firearm is dual use technology. And laws that regulate the function or availability of any firearm will impact it's use for both good and ill. Raise the bar on function or availability and people will be injured or killed as a result. Since the nature of any firearm regulation impacts people in the context of life and death, each and every negative outcome of such regulation carries significant personal, social, and political weight. Any argument that emphasizes regulation based on the impact of firearms on either side of the debate at the expense of the other becomes increasingly fraudulent the greater the degree of obsession. Such obsession only profits those groups whose business model is designed to profit from irrational fears and misconceptions surrounding the reality of firearms in favor of the creation of a doctrinaire ideology the purpose of which is to support that ideology and the profits generated from it.


-------------

More at link.

[gejohnston]

1. Surprising?

Maybe to the two extremes. I do think it is more accurate to say "handguns are used more often" than "they are the problem".

[GreenStormCloud]

3. Even though Obama ordered the study to be made...

...the bansalot group will call it an NRA study.

[jimmy the one]

4. reflected glory

Accidents are down, too: “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1% of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

Reflected glory from lower accidental firearm death/injury rates in guncontrol states with safe storage laws, compared with progun states which tend not to have them.
About 5 progun states with highest gun accident rates were something like 4 times higher than similar number of guncontrol states with lowest accident rate.
But of course you'll not see nra nor gunnuts give credit where it's due.

Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies

This is apparently true*, but fails to note that when injury IS sustained by the crime victim pulling his gun, the average injury is far worse than the average injuries to the compliant/other crime victim.
*On the order of small percents, like ~12% of crime victims who pull a gun suffer injury, compared to ~15% of more compliant crime victims. But as I said, injuries when a gun is pulled defensively, tend far more serious & costly.
Also, when a gun is pulled by a crime victim, there is a higher incidence of the gun being stolen by the assaulter in any ensuing struggle, than when a crime victim does not have a gun.

.. People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.21
..A federal govt study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.
.. Gen Accting Office estimated 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23% http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

[AtheistCrusader]

6. That's not how I recall the study going.

"This is apparently true*, but fails to note that when injury IS sustained by the crime victim pulling his gun, the average injury is far worse than the average injuries to the compliant/other crime victim.
*On the order of small percents, like ~12% of crime victims who pull a gun suffer injury, compared to ~15% of more compliant crime victims. But as I said, injuries when a gun is pulled defensively, tend far more serious & costly.
Also, when a gun is pulled by a crime victim, there is a higher incidence of the gun being stolen by the assaulter in any ensuing struggle, than when a crime victim does not have a gun."


The last time I saw that study it indicated that people who resisted with a gun were harmed less than people who did not resist (who fared worst) or people who resisted with anything other than a gun. And that once resistance began, harm fell off dramatically.

The 'weakness' of using firearms in self defense in this context of the study wasn't that those that resisted suffered fewer but more grievous injuries (a logical conclusion, as the stakes escalate for both parties in the fight) but rather that the people who resisted with fists and feet did pretty well compared to people who resisted with a gun. Not quite as well, but the difference was much smaller than anyone seemed to expect.

[rrneck]

16. Parsed to incoherence.

More guns result in more gun incidents. Obsessing about guns only to the exclusion of a multitude of other contributing factors proves my (belated) point.

Is it really necessary to try to parse death, grievous bodily harm, bodily harm that results in bankruptcy from medical expenses and bodily harm that just generally wrecks a life? I don't think so. My point proven again.

[Mojorabbit]

19. I just read the study.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=16

It makes perfect sense to me that victims with weapons would have a lower injury rate.
Peace, Mojo

[Lurks Often]

5. Surprising only to those who ignore facts n/t

[Robb]

7. Such as ignoring the first paragraph?

1. The United States has an indisputable gun violence problem. According to the report, “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”.

If one wishes to argue that one point in this article has validity on the basis of its inclusion alone, one must face the reality that every point has equal validity under that rubric.

There is an indisputable gun violence problem in this country. Not a violence problem. Not a crime problem. Not an income-inequity problem. Not even, as I have often suggested, an asshole problem.

A gun violence problem. And addressing a gun violence problem without addressing guns in the specific is like addressing Formula 1 tire blowouts by regulating tires on passenger vehicles.

[oneshooter]

9. No, such as ignoring the rest of the report.

Your blinders are showing.

[Robb]

10. You don't get to pick and choose.

If you want to tout the rest of the report's conclusions, you're being dishonest if you don't tout them all equally.

[gejohnston]

15. which is primarly among people who have little or no legal access

to guns either based on criminal record (federal) or local (criminal record plus licensing or bans). But how about violence regardless of weapon? There are also most likely large differences in how those countries deal with those issues that have nothing to do with guns. Are their prison systems rehabilitation focused? How easy is it for them to regain all of their rights and privileges once they get out and integrate back into society? Ex cons, can vote in those countries. Some even get absentee ballots in prison. Some countries, like Canada, even allow them to legally own guns (assuming they were nonviolent convictions of course.) In the US, even John Dean so much as touches a gun and he can go back to prison for five years. It is probably easier for them to get a job afterwards. They have closer knit communities and other social safety nets to prevent the problems to begin with. Of course, there are also cultural and historical factors. We are more individualistic and view that as a "granted from god", and all of that other cool enlightenment stuff that brought the revolution. Europe and British Commonwealth, not so much.

[Mojorabbit]

20. Most of which are suicides. nt

[Robb]

21. "The U.S. rate of firearm-related homicides" are mostly suicides?

[gejohnston]

22. stands to reason

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

[Mojorabbit]

23. I posted the link to the study above. nt

[Eleanors38]

8. Good post. No surprise here...

The "gun violence problem" of repeat felons
attacking others with guns can be ameliorated even further by imposing longer sentences on these most dangerous criminals.

Once again, declining rates of unintentional deaths-by-gun have been confirmed.

Good to see declining gun-related death rates in the 15 - 19 age bracket as well.

We can also see how the grossly corrupt and damaging WOD continues to have an effect on gun-related violence. That should be obvious to all.

[Starboard Tack]

11. No surprise that you left out number 1.

1. The United States has an indisputable gun violence problem. According to the report, “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”

Oops!

[rrneck]

12. If I wanted to leave it out

I wouldn't have given you a link.

The issues presented in the OP are roughly two and two.

Look for the word "obsession" in the OP and you will, if you think about it, discover the point.

[Starboard Tack]

13. Your point seems to be about obsession with ideology.

You used "obsession" twice. You used the word "ideology" six times. Though I'm unclear as to what ideology. Is it about any ideology, or is at about capitalizing, politically or financially, on any ideology?

[rrneck]

14. The latter.

The more people obsess about a single cause the more their obsession seem to resemble a fundamentalist faith with the same predictable results. Those results include, but are not limited to, profits for the producers of self sustaining ideology.

[gejohnston]

17. here is the whole study

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1

[rrneck]

18. Cool! Thanks. nt

[jimmy the one]

24. resistance

prev jto: ..when injury IS sustained by the crime victim pulling his gun, the average injury is far worse than the average injuries to the compliant/other crime victim.
atheistcrusader:..last time I saw that study it indicated that people who resisted with a gun were harmed less than people who did not resist (who fared worst) or people who resisted with anything other than a gun. And that once resistance began, harm fell off..

You're citing a different study than I was;
----------------------------------------------
Victim self-defense Between 1993 and 2001, about 61% of all victims of violent crime reported taking a self-defensive measure during the incident. Most used nonaggressive means, such as trying to escape, getting help, or attempting to scare off or warn the offender. About 13% of victims of violent crime tried to attack or threaten the offender. About 2% of victims of violent crime used a weapon to defend themselves; half of these, about 1% of violent crime victims, brandished a firearm. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

Overall 71.4% of victims of violent crime took some type of self-protective measure (close with bjs above of 61%);
Almost all studies show that resistance is successful in preventing the completion of a personal crime.. in rape, robbery, assault
BUT >>> Victims resisting robberies are 20% more likely to be injured than victims who comply with the robbers’ demands. 86% of resisting victims are injured as compared to 66% of compliant victims And of course gun injuries tend more severe.
this link argues both sides of this, somehow: http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/resistance-to-violent-crime-what-does-the-research-show
Most “experts” and police authorities advise crime victims to never resist their attackers under any circumstance.

However, "injuries are less common in gun robberies than in nongun robberies... Analysts typically attribute the lower injury rate among gun robbery victims to their lower rates of resistance.http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

Now observe what the gun gurus found!: Kleck and Delone ("Victim Resistance and Offender Weapon Effects in Robbery,"1993) found that robbery victims who used guns in self-protection were significantly less likely to either be injured or lose their property than victims who used any other form of self protection or who did nothing to resist

[rrneck]

25. Did you have a point?

I think you responded to the wrong post.